There are several ongoing conversations about whether the tool
should allow everything to be marked "all concerns addressed".
Please continue those on tools-discuss. It's quite likely that
some future datatracker will have a quick way for some reviewer to
say this.
But whether or not the tool does this, chairs, authors, and shepherds should be working together to understand the state of resolution of reviews. A single state description in a tool can only approximate the reality of roughly resolving many threads of discussion, and _nobody_ in the set of people responsible should take action just because they see a bunch of "happy" or "unhappy" indicators. They need to understand what those indicators mean, and understand when they are wrong.
RjS
Hi Tero,thank you for explaining the WoW at SecDir. The reason for my inquiry is that the status in the Datatracker was taken by the WG Chairs as an unaddressed obstacle to progressing the document despite that we worked with the reviewer and converged on acceptable updates several versions back.
Regards,Greg
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:35 PM Tero Kivinen <kivinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
Greg Mirsky writes:
> thank you for your comments and the discussion. I appreciate it if you could
> update that status of your review in the Datatracker from "Has nits" to
> reflect the conclusion of our discussion.
We do not normally do that in the secdir. The review status in the
datatracker reflects the status of the original review. When the
document goes forward there might be another review (at least during
the telechat time), and then the reviewer will redo review and there
will be new review posted.
--
kivinen@xxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
